Gulf Coast Power Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760243519
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5126706702
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,705,973
Expenses
$1,743,907
Assets
$3,202,827
Liabilities
$5,790

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Beth Garza (President)
  • Brian Lloyd (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Barbara Clemenhagen (Exec Director): $330,288 total reported compensation
  • Mary Armstrong (Dep Exec Dir): $210,320 total reported compensation
  • Donna Foy (Member & Event Mgr): $112,415 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Gulf Coast Power Association's mission is to promote an improved understanding of issues and opportunities impacting contemporary power markets. This is achieved through the creation of many educational and networking opportunities where members and other industry professionals can learn and exchange information and ideas.

What it reported doing in 2025

Gulf Coast Power Association:* Provided a means for all persons having an interest in competitive power to exchange information and ideas;* Kept members informed and provided forums of discussion of current and upcoming events, including federal, state and local legislation and regulations;* Provided a forum for resolution of industry-wide technical and regulatory issues;* Promoted a greater public understanding of competitive power and gave recognition to those making significant contributions to the competitive power industry;* Encouraged good professional business methods and practices by members and others that will promote the growth of the competitive power business; and* Kept members informed and provided forums for discussion of events and issues in the international markets which are of interest to our members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35.6%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.84; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $330K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.